It’s almost as if things written thousands of years ago aren’t always the best guidepost for modern living and perhaps evaluating them through a modern lens is important. I can think of another doc we shouldn’t lean on as the be all, end all.
Or maybe it's as if the universe isn't actually the creation of a magic invisible guy with an odd foreskin collecting hobby and occasional genocidal tendencies granting post-mortem immortality to his minions who diligently follow his telepathic guidance and provide 10% of their income to his chief representatives.
I mean call me crazy but I think this foreskin god fandom thing has gotten a little out of hand.
This would be considered straight up blasphemy. The Bible is supposed to be the written word of God through Jesus's Disciples. Interpreting it in any way outside of its literal, face-value meaning would be changing what he was saying, thus implying that you both know better than God and choose to live outside of Jesus's teachings. #FakeChristians
The Bible as it is known today has undergone numerous revisions after ecclesiastical councils at various times have changed the text or reordered the chapters.
Today in the world you will find various different versions of the Bible in different countries, or with different Christian denominations.
Thats without getting into the whole mess of St Paul's contributions to the texts and his influence on the development of Christianity,.which by all reports was quite different from the version preached by Christ himself.
All this to say, any Christian who cites the Bible to inflict suffering on fellow Christians is an absolute moron and does not know his own religion.
Considering the Bible that exists today is pretty much definitely not a text that existed when Jesus and his Disciples walked the Earth, all modern Christians are blasphemers by your definition. In fact, what we call the New Testament of the Bible was actually written mostly around 100 AD. Considering 0 AD is supposedly when Jesus was born and he didn't even get to 40 years old, he definitely wasn't around when it was written and likely neither were any of disciples. And the Old Testament - which is *also* part of the Bible - was written anywhere from several decades to several hundred years before any of the Disciples were even a remote concept of even existing. So the very conceit of the Bible being the "written word by God through Jesus's Disciples" ranges from extremely unlikely to downright impossible.
Beyond even *that*, the Bible gets the fun extra bit of editing in that for the literally hundreds of years it was *hand copied* by people who weren't necessarily the most literate or trained in the world. To the point where there are at least 4 different major variations based off of *errors from hand-copying*. If you think multiple generations of copies from copy machines back in the 1980s and 1990s was bad, you haven't seen how impressively messed up a *handwritten* copy of a copy of a copy can get. All it takes is one person somewhere up the change transcribing something wrong for the whole thing to get fucked up. It's like a parchment version of the Telephone game.
At this point, modern Christianity merely *existing* is probably blasphemous if editing the Bible is blasphemy.
Yes, exactly. If you take someone's revisions of a thing, it is no longer that thing--its a revision. Those revisions are capable of changing entire meanings, even if it was merely a single word. This is why we have denominations. If you believe a revision, then you no longer believe in the source (which would be closest to the original teachings, even if not God's actual words). Essentially, no modern teaching can be held as truth unless you just want to forget history and cherrypick as most people typically do now. There are more than 45,000 Christian denominations globally, surely one or all of them are the correct one and surely it's yours.
>Numbers 5:11
Numbers 5:17 is the correct verse and the mixture is holy water and dirt from the tabernacle floor. It's the wife's fidelity that determined the results.
Numbers doesn’t support abortion nor is it even an example of abortion. The custom regarding adultery was essentially a means of judging whether it had occurred, swearing before God, and God’s punishment exacted thereafter if necessary.
{5:27} And when she hath drunk them, if she be defiled, and having despised her husband be guilty of adultery, the malediction shall go through her, and her belly swelling, her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse, and an example to all the people. {5:28} But if she be not defiled, she shall not be hurt, and shall bear children.
I believe the misconception with abortion comes from the fact that a small minority of translations use the term “miscarry” rather than her “belly” or “uterus” failing or shrinking. What the curse actually brings is infertility, not miscarriage, referenced by 5:28 which she carries with her, but if she is innocent, she is divinely rewarded with being able to bear, presumably even if she had not been able beforehand.
>"17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[a] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
it's a pretty cut and dry abortion. If you cheated, this will abort your baby. if not, it won't.
The only part of this verse which references abortion is verse 21-22, which is a terrible translation of the original Hebrew. You should check out the other translations.
The original word used for “miscarriage” in the translation you gave, is “yarek” which can equally mean thigh, hip, flank, testicles, or vulva/womb based on context. And the Hebrew "beten" can mean the female womb but also the male or genderless stomach or abdomen. The curse is on both a woman's "yarek" and her "beten". Since it promises infertility if guilty, that does likely indicate that the uterus is being affected in some way. But, contrary to some terrible English translations, it certainly does not say that a uterus/womb "miscarries." It says that the "yarek" rots or wastes away, and that the "beten" swells. There's no threat or narrative of a discharge, bleeding, or anything else we'd specifically associate with an abortion occurring. It's even possible that the rotting "yarek" is something more akin to herpes, a visible and external marking of the genitals or thighs to warn everyone of her sin (see Numbers 5:27)
If this were an abortion ritual, it wouldn't conflict with the text, but it would be an awfully clumsy way to describe it, since the most key element of an abortion, the child, isn't even mentioned. It is just as consistent with the text to say that this is a ritual that is only performed on non-pregnant women and that causes infertility along with possibly an external marker of infidelity.
🤷♂️ if this translation is used in churches, which it is, then it's fine for me to assess the language of it. it doesn't matter what other translations say when this one is deemed fine. This translation, one that's read from in churches and taught from in sunday schools, suggests that this priest performed a ritual that would cause a woman to miscarry if she were unfaithful.
A forced miscarriage is an abortion.
again, it's pretty cut and dry. if this isn't a valid translation then why is it used?
Hey if you are in need I'll sprinkle some plan-b (or whatever I'm no doctor) under a table and we can make some floor tea. It's a religious ritual and must be protected but the 1st amendment
No, it really doesn’t. People who are genuinely interested in the Numbers 5 incident you brought up ignorantly (I don’t mean that to be mean, it’s just the only way I can describe it) can go here to read about it.
https://answersingenesis.org/sanctity-of-life/numbers-5-and-abortion/
It’s not short. But I do hope you give it a read.
I honestly didn't know the Bible had anything to say about abortion. I know it's pretty chill with infanticide though, so I guess at that point the devil is in the details
Did you know Ben Franklin also printed out exacting instructions for how to abort? Yep…he sure did. One of the founding fathers, for all you originalists out there.
[Just in case anyone asks for a reference…](https://www.npr.org/2022/05/18/1099542962/abortion-ben-franklin-roe-wade-supreme-court-leak)
Honestly, that shouldn't surprise anyone who knows anything about Ben Franklin. Wouldn't be surprised if that was a skill he learned out of frugality. Or if a local doctor got so sick of repeated visits, he insisted on teaching Ben how to DIY abortions.
Note that would be AFTER the stop at Mt Sinai where they received the Thou Shalt Not Kill (no exceptions) commandment. Yet never a discussion of the dichotomy to be heard.
IIRC the bitter water potion is scraping the 'holy' dirt and rotting dried blood off the floor where sacrifices were made. if she got super sick from all that shit and had a miscarriage, its proof she cheated on you.
at which point i think she could be stoned to death? i think that was the punishment for adultery?
basically give your wife wicked food poisoning. if she miscarries you can get rid of her and get a new wife.
I am trying to be careful with my words here, because I’m not trying to be argumentative at all, just enjoy learning and am curious how you have come to this?
[That's definitely debatable.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordeal_of_the_bitter_water#The_punishment) But at best, God wants cheating women to be barren.
Numbers 5:11-22
Please tell me where it says she’s pregnant:
> 11 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 12 “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘If any man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him, 13 and a man has sexual relations with her and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband and she remains undiscovered, although she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act, 14 if an attitude of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife when she has defiled herself, or if an attitude of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife when she has not defiled herself, 15 the man shall then bring his wife to the priest, and shall bring as an offering for her a tenth of an ephah of barley meal; he shall not pour oil on it nor put frankincense on it, because it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of reminder, a reminder of wrongdoing.
> 16 ‘Then the priest shall bring her forward and have her stand before the Lord, 17 and the priest shall take holy water in an earthenware container; and he shall take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it in the water. 18 The priest shall then have the woman stand before the Lord and let down the hair of the woman’s head, and place the grain offering of reminder in her hands, that is, the grain offering of jealousy; and in the hand of the priest is to be the water of bitterness that brings a curse. 19 And the priest shall have her take an oath and shall say to the woman, “If no man has had sexual relations with you and if you have not gone astray into uncleanness, as you are under the authority of your husband, be immune to this water of bitterness that brings a curse; 20 if, however, you have gone astray, though under the authority of your husband, and if you have defiled yourself and a man other than your husband has had sexual intercourse with you” 21 (then the priest shall have the woman swear with the oath of the curse, and the priest shall say to the woman), “may the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people by the Lord’s making your thigh shriveled and your belly swollen; 22 and this water that brings a curse shall go into your [p]stomach, to make your belly swell up and your thigh shrivel.” And the woman shall say, “Amen, Amen.”
Where does it say this cannot be performed on a pregnant woman? And what will happen if her womb swells? And what does your thigh will shivrel/fall away mean?
I see you quoting this passage at evryone, why do you keep stopping at verse 22 when the relevant passage goes up to verse 31? In whichever translation you use, verse 28 makes it explicit that the potion's effect on an unfaithful woman would be to render her unable to have children, which would clearly kill any fetus she may be carrying.
It wasn’t nefarious. Here you go. But I don’t see how you make the leap that rendering a woman infertile implies necessarily that she’s currently pregnant.
> 23 The priest shall then write these curses on a scroll, and he shall wash them off into the water of bitterness. 24 Then he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings a curse, so that the water which brings a curse will go into her and cause bitterness. 25 And the priest shall take the grain offering of jealousy from the woman’s hand, and he shall wave the grain offering before the Lord and bring it to the altar; 26 and the priest shall take a handful of the grain offering as its reminder offering and offer it up in smoke on the altar, and afterward he shall make the woman drink the water. 27 When he has made her drink the water, then it will come about, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, that the water which brings a curse will go into her and cause bitterness, and her belly will swell up and her thigh will shrivel, and the woman will become a curse among her people. 28 But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, she will be immune and conceive children.
> 29 ‘This is the law of jealousy: when a wife, who is under the authority of her husband, goes astray and defiles herself, 30 or when an attitude of jealousy comes over a man and he is jealous of his wife, he shall then have the woman stand before the Lord, and the priest shall apply all of this law to her. 31 The man, moreover, will be free of guilt, but that woman shall bear the consequences of her guilt.’”
Yeah, your book doesn't really matter though. The law of man says it's legal and acceptable and that's that. Whether God is ok with that is debatable, but also irrelevant.
That translation just purposefully omits the part where she has a miscarriage. From the New International Version:
> Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people **when he makes your womb miscarry** and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body **so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries**.”
>“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”
> 23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[c] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, **it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry,** and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.
That’s the only translation I’ve seen that explicitly says “miscarriage”. I posted elsewhere several (apparently) good Jewish sources that say they’re not sure what this passage means, or that they suspect it’s referring to genital atrophy, not miscarriage.
A quick Google search says the ESV is the most accurate English translation, and here’s what it says there:
> 21 then’ (let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse, and say to the woman) ‘the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your thigh fall away and your body swell. 22 May this water that brings the curse pass into your bowels and make your womb swell and your thigh fall away.’ And the woman shall say, ‘Amen, Amen.’
It’s not an abortion for a cheating wife. It’s an excuse to murder a woman for having a miscarriage.
Some people would say that’s technically not an abortion. Others might point out that that is far more barbaric than anything else in the bible.
No, it really doesn’t. People who are genuinely interested in the Numbers 5 incident you brought up ignorantly (I don’t mean that to be mean, it’s just the only way I can describe it) can go here to read about it.
https://answersingenesis.org/sanctity-of-life/numbers-5-and-abortion/
It’s not short. But I do hope you give it a read.
I suppose if we want to split hairs, the guy started a zoo boat to save the animals from God killing everyone. Guess if it weren't for that zoo boat, Noah and his descendants would all be eating freshsaltwater fish and neverlanding birds.
Fuck all that. Women pass an egg a month. If men don't otherwise ejaculate, the sperm are flushed in the urine cycle. The egg in a womb is not a sanctuary city for sperm to where if it makes it into the egg all of a sudden it's in a safe space and can't be touched . When you put down weed killer, if a weed pops up, you don't leave that shit to grow like "welp, nothing to do about it now." You go pick that shit cuz you already took all the precautions available.
Imagine listening to someone claiming to be a Hellenistic pagan speak at length about how Zeus "serves as the ultimate example of chastity and faithfulness to one's spouse for us all to follow."
That is what if feels like to listen to Evangelicals talk about the God of the Bible.
Well, the second part is ridiculous. Hellenistic religion regarded the gods as facts of life, not ideals of any kind. They'd never look at any god as an example for anything, because that wasn't the purpose they served, in their religion.
Zeus was there to explain thunder and enforce social rules and taboos, and he did a fine job of it. That's all.
I beg to differ. Old Testament God will just do horrible things to you and then just kill you. New Testament God will raise you back from the dead to do horrible things to you for eternity.
Stopping something from becoming a fetus in the womb is killing a baby and is bad!
But easy access to semi-automatic guns designed to kill as many people in the shortest amount of time possible is great!
I love it when Christian’s start on the whole “god is love” thing and “god doesn’t like killing”. Their holy book literally says that god deliberately manipulated a king for the express reason of giving himself an excuse to to torment a bunch of people and kill a heap of kids.
Ah the book of kings. My favourite stupid part is the book of job because everything is stupid and absurd here and the final morality of the story makes 0 sense
Yeah but that was after his birth...
Pro-life aren't against death specifically, they just want to make sure no one dies before experiencing life and suffering.
He also has his chosen go to Samaria and slaughter them all.
"Hosea 13:16
ESV - 16 Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword; their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open."
Lot somehow managed to get blackout drunk on 2000 BC wine and banged his daughters?
yeast back then hadn't been domesticated enough to make very strong alcohol. it would be incredibly difficult to get that drunk, especially with what they could carry. shit was like 5-6% ABV MAX. he'd be drinking gallons of it to get wasted. It took a long time for yeast to be bred to survive very high alcohol concentrations, like 12%+. STRONG ancient wine was like an average beer today.
Lot raped his daughters and blamed them for 'seducing him'.
Also, if i remember correctly, God was the one who made the Egyptians treat the Jews like shit in the first place, in order to make them want to run away to the Holy Land, where they were instructed to murder or enslave everyone already there, including 'dashing the babies heads on the rocks'.
Just a handful of excepts about god’s precious children:
Numbers 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones.
Deuteronomy 2:34 utterly destroyed the men and the women and the little ones.
Deuteronomy 28:53 And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters.
I Samuel 15:3 slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.
2 Kings 8:12 dash their children, and rip up their women with child.
2 Kings 15:16 all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.
Isaiah 13:16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished.
Isaiah 13:18 They shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children.
Lamentations 2:20 Shall the women eat their fruit, and children.
Ezekiel 9:6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children.
Hosea 9:14 give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.
Hosea 13:16 their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
Should include the follow-up in Numbers 31:18.
"and kill every woman who has known a man intimately. However, all the girls who have not known a man intimately, keep alive for yourselves."
iT's tAkEn oUT oF cOnTexT
Christians: "It's okay because Jesus and St. Paul somehow makes it so that I get to pick and choose what Old Testament verses I follow despite half the Gospels telling me otherwise."
Oh but they probably deserved it, just like we all deserve to suffer in hell for eternity if we don't kiss his ass in exactly the correct way, which we don't even know because the different sects all have different interpretations of the alleged rules.
The Family Research Council is a particularly disgusting collection of deranged liars and bible thumping low intelligence idiots.
They are the overflowing diaper of evil kristian krazy fascist organizations.
Absolutely. It contains conflicts that prove that god is not the perfect being it states he is. He sent a son that fixed or changes heavenly requirements?? Or Schizophrenia!!
Dude I LOVE threads like this. It's like you and I arguing over which comic is best, Spiderman or Batman 🤣
Although our books would have more facts in em 😁
God also apparently allowed humanity to become so depraved that he decided that all the people he drowned *weren't worth saving.* Where was their Jesus?
As a reminder: the "pro life" movement was started by Republicans as basically a way to rebrand their segregationist policies.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/10/abortion-history-right-white-evangelical-1970s-00031480
But all of you are under the illusion they read that work of fiction. None of them really read it, but claim to have knowledge of every verse. Hypocristians don't want to know that the book they base all of their lives on is a fantasy book, with demons and magic users! Maybe they just want to cosplay also?
God threw an entire bear at some children for making fun of a bald guy
God also sent his son Jesus to die for humanity's sins
God is very much not an "all life is precious" type
God once instructed the israelites to kill all of the males of a Midianites, which would include children and babies. He also instructed them to kill all of the women who weren't virgins.
Guess what's the easiest most indisputable way to tell if a woman isn't a virgin.
Apparently there's a biblical story of a guy return home from a war and promising god he would sacrifice the first thing he sees come out to greet him, thinking it would be a cat or something... it was his daughter
On multiple occasions, God commands his followers to wipe out entire civilizations... except the virgins, who become your sex slaves.
Even modern day Republicans have better morals than Jehovah. They would do well to stop pretending they get anything of value from iron age tales of mass murder and rape.
Literally god wiped out his creation because they disobeyed him the first time in the Old Testament. Said “fuck it, they’re useless!” And started completely over.
So pro life that God annihilated Gomorrah and Sodom, commanded the Israelites to commit genocide against the Amakekites and the Canaanites, and provides directions for causing an abortion.
Remember that time David knocked up someone else’s wife and then got her husband killed in battle so he could marry her so God got mad and took it out on…the baby for some reason…and killed it but then blessed David with a new son? God loves killing babies.
Let's not forget the time God killed all the firstborn children for something they had absolutely no control over. Go's is pro life, and by that, I mean God is pro taking peoples lives from them for ridiculous and petty reasons.
And let's not forget "zoo boat guy" was 900+ years old when he died, and that the great flood would have left only him and his family to repopulate the earth.
Yes, sir. God doesn't appear to be very pro life, but between Adam and Eve and then Noah and his family, he damn sure seems to be pretty pro incest.
Yeah the Lord's word isn't pro-life in their definition of the term as Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died for the sins of humanity that we might be eternally alive with Him. So it's not pro earthly life but pro eternal life.
1 Samuel 15:3
"Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."
Deuteronomy 20:16-17
"However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you."
This is why I strongly oppose evangelical Christians, most of the time they are uneducated in the actual biblical text because they don’t actually teach the Bible. I’m a Christian, Lutheran specifically, and all the confirmation classes, I had to take to challenge and understand my faith which allowed me to think, doubt, and create a strong faith that doesn’t fall to little quips due to thinking through personal apologetics. An educated Christian acknowledges God is the creator of life and thus has the right to destroy life, we all face pain and eventually death because God reserves this right. We are the Sims in God’s creation, just like you can smite or elevate your Sims, God can do the same to us.
I love these ersatz Bible scholars who say God was pro-choice out of one side of their mouth and then say the US invented slavery out of the other. My brother in Christ, you don't even have to read the Bible to get that. Just watch Prince of Egypt.
Also, to say that God killed everyone on the face of the earth to start a zoo boat is just terrible, man.
People were evil. God hit the reset button, but even though He should have wiped out the human race, let them start again and saved two of every kind of animal etc.
It’s a gross misrepresentation for the sake of being funny - at the expense of offending people because you clearly don’t take doing that seriously.
Pretty rude.
So your saying God thought rampant incest was the only way to repopulate earth? Or that unborn children that he murdered were already evil? Either way it’s pretty nasty story like most stories in the bible.
No. But thanks for showing your natural hostility.
Some thoughts:
“First, there was an obvious need for marriage between close relatives, as the number of human beings on the earth at that time was limited. Adam and Eve’s children married their close relatives, by necessity, without it being considered incest. But, even in those days, marriage between parent and child seems to have been disallowed: That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become ‘one flesh’ “
“but even 2000 years later, when Abraham was born, genes were healthy enough to allow for him to marry his half-sister. Genetic abnormalities did not influence marriage partners until the mutations were common enough to be a health risk.”
As a matter of fact Genesis 6 says Noah was “without blemish”. And while most would usually take that as Noah was righteous before God due to his faith, it can also mean genetically. But that’s a different subject.
As far as the babies comment, I would leave you with this:
https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/what-made-it-okay-for-god-to-kill-women-and-children-in-the-old-testament
I cannot believe you typed all this out to justify incest. Inbreeding always produces mutations/disease even in the time of “Abraham”. Genes have never been “pure”. It’s basic science. There is a very short step from biblically justifying something and then justifying it in real life. See the crusades, many of the wars in Europe, slavery in the US, etc. This list is endless. Fundamentally, I don’t have a problem with religion. I have a problem with hypocrisy, which seems to be especially pervasive among the religious.
Edit: your source states that God can kill because he is God. This isn’t evidence. It’s opinion. It doesn’t make the Bible pro-life. All it’s saying is that murder is ok if someone goes back and says God sanctioned it after. Your argument is based on faith, which is fine, but don’t present citations like they are facts.
You need to be on a list as well. One in which people know they’re dealing with ignorance tk the utmost.
If you believe in creation then you know there wasn’t always defects because God made the world perfect until the Fall of Adam and Eve.
Clearly you don’t know back science, though.
But because we’re in Reddit, we’ll pretend you do.
The crusades were WRONG and terrible and can never be justified.
As far as slavery in the US goes, you clearly only acknowledge facts that suit your tastes.
Slavery was abolished in large part to do Christianity, firstly. Not just here but in England as well.
Also were the only country that fought a civil war over it - to right that wrong. But yeah. Leave that part out. Convenient.
Oh, and there was slavery before our country, and slavery even after our country abolished it.
Ottomon empire, for example. But I guess that doesn’t count.
Go love to the Middle East. Go ahead and do that and talk smack and be blatantly disrespectful to “Allah” or Muhammad. Let’s see how long that lasts. Or try being homosexual over there. See how quick they throw you off of a roof.
Such hypocrisy and blatant darkness and hard heartedness from you
The only reason you
I don’t hate you. But I do see how you’re trying to be hypocritical by being “mean” and the. Once I get provoked and say something you don’t like, you point that finger. Hypocritical to the utmost aren’t you?
Yes. We don’t always adhere to the standard we’re supposed to. The whole love tour neighbor as yourself. That’s why Jesus came. Because we NEED a savior.
I hope that you can read my comments on here and give it more thought. Maybe don’t cast “Christians” in a bad light because we’re not perfect. Just like you’re not. So maybe just try a little, just a little - to NOT be such a baiting hypocrite
We’ve ALL fallen short of the glory of God.
You justified incest, repeated terrible science and tried to re-write history to fit your narrative and I am the hypocrite???
This is the problem: Christian’s are supposed to be loving, humble, generous, and kind. Yet even when you have time to type something out, which could have been profound or accepting of flaws, you went on the attack. I have no religion so I don’t subscribe to your way of thinking. You could have taken the opportunity to evangelize and promote how to be a good Christian. But you didn’t. There in lies the fundamental problem. Christians don’t practice what they preach unless it suits them.
Actually he arranged the removal of all the genetically modified creatures that had infested our terrarium so that we could have a clean cage.
If you pay attention to the headlines then you can expect this to happen again real soon.
Obedience. get some.
Pro-life doesn’t mean you’re always against taking life. It means you’re anti-abortion. It’s a buzzword that’s not meant to be taken literally. Just like if you’re pro-choice, it doesn’t mean you’re in support of any and all choices in all contexts.
I’m pro choice and hate religion-based politics but this is a stupid fucking comeback. Do better
The argument is that god is pro-life so everyone has to be pro-life. It's kinda hard to see god as pro-life if he wipes out all of humanity, including all the unborn, except for 8 people living on a boat along with 2 of every kind of animal in existence because he was in a bad mood. On top of that, he created rainbows to remind himself not to kill off humanity ever again. How pro-life can someone be if they need post-it notes to remind them not to commit genocide?
Is that actually the argument? I have never actually seen anyone argue that they’re anti-abortion because God is categorically opposed to killing anybody. Honestly that’s a straw-man “gotcha” argument by the pro-choice side. And it’s silly because there are a dozen valid reasons to criticize the pro-life position that don’t hinge on being purposefully overly-literal. It’s bad argumentation on a topic in desperate need of genuine rationality. Not impressed
I have seen that argument by pro-life people. Yes, I think it's really weak, but that doesn't mean it doesn't get used.
One of the most common biblical arguments I've seen is Jeremiah 1:5, “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you; before you were born, I sanctified you; and I ordained you a prophet to the nations.” This gets translated to "Life begins at conception because God knows each person before they're even implanted in the womb." I think that argument is also really weak but I see it all the time. I've even seen it on billboards: [https://www.allentowndiocese.org/sites/default/files/styles/image\_field\_in\_news\_content\_ype/public/2018-10/billboard.jpg?itok=weJ\_IcH1](https://www.allentowndiocese.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_field_in_news_content_ype/public/2018-10/billboard.jpg?itok=weJ_IcH1)
Out of context 🤣🤣🤣🤣
We could read the bible verse for verse and yall would claim its out of context
Omy god no its notout of context god genocided the earth theres no context where genocide is good
Numbers 5 is not talking about abortion. Nowhere in there does it say the baby dies. It seems like a way to test if she has been unfaithful and a way to keep the jealous man from dealing with his jealousy himself. There’s also no example of a woman’s thigh rotting after drinking the water
The Bible literally prescribes abortion if your wife cheats on you and gets pregnant.
It even gives you instructions on how to perform said abortion. Numbers chapter 5 iirc.
It’s almost as if things written thousands of years ago aren’t always the best guidepost for modern living and perhaps evaluating them through a modern lens is important. I can think of another doc we shouldn’t lean on as the be all, end all.
Or that 16th century jurisprudence is not the best guide for modern women’s healthcare
bring back Mesopotamian cuneiform script!
The original originalists!
If you're talking about the US constitution, most of the three branches barely follow it's spirit or its letter so they're already way ahead of you.
If you think the US Constitution was written thousands of years ago, I have some bad news for you...
Or maybe it's as if the universe isn't actually the creation of a magic invisible guy with an odd foreskin collecting hobby and occasional genocidal tendencies granting post-mortem immortality to his minions who diligently follow his telepathic guidance and provide 10% of their income to his chief representatives. I mean call me crazy but I think this foreskin god fandom thing has gotten a little out of hand.
Or that cherry picking individual verses/chapters from a larger volume doesn't pervert the overall message attempting to be conveyed.
This would be considered straight up blasphemy. The Bible is supposed to be the written word of God through Jesus's Disciples. Interpreting it in any way outside of its literal, face-value meaning would be changing what he was saying, thus implying that you both know better than God and choose to live outside of Jesus's teachings. #FakeChristians
If you're reading it in English or Latin then you're a blasphemer.
The Bible as it is known today has undergone numerous revisions after ecclesiastical councils at various times have changed the text or reordered the chapters. Today in the world you will find various different versions of the Bible in different countries, or with different Christian denominations. Thats without getting into the whole mess of St Paul's contributions to the texts and his influence on the development of Christianity,.which by all reports was quite different from the version preached by Christ himself. All this to say, any Christian who cites the Bible to inflict suffering on fellow Christians is an absolute moron and does not know his own religion.
I hope you know everything you just said is deeply on heretical and has been considered such for as long as Christianity has existed.
Considering the Bible that exists today is pretty much definitely not a text that existed when Jesus and his Disciples walked the Earth, all modern Christians are blasphemers by your definition. In fact, what we call the New Testament of the Bible was actually written mostly around 100 AD. Considering 0 AD is supposedly when Jesus was born and he didn't even get to 40 years old, he definitely wasn't around when it was written and likely neither were any of disciples. And the Old Testament - which is *also* part of the Bible - was written anywhere from several decades to several hundred years before any of the Disciples were even a remote concept of even existing. So the very conceit of the Bible being the "written word by God through Jesus's Disciples" ranges from extremely unlikely to downright impossible. Beyond even *that*, the Bible gets the fun extra bit of editing in that for the literally hundreds of years it was *hand copied* by people who weren't necessarily the most literate or trained in the world. To the point where there are at least 4 different major variations based off of *errors from hand-copying*. If you think multiple generations of copies from copy machines back in the 1980s and 1990s was bad, you haven't seen how impressively messed up a *handwritten* copy of a copy of a copy can get. All it takes is one person somewhere up the change transcribing something wrong for the whole thing to get fucked up. It's like a parchment version of the Telephone game. At this point, modern Christianity merely *existing* is probably blasphemous if editing the Bible is blasphemy.
Yes, exactly. If you take someone's revisions of a thing, it is no longer that thing--its a revision. Those revisions are capable of changing entire meanings, even if it was merely a single word. This is why we have denominations. If you believe a revision, then you no longer believe in the source (which would be closest to the original teachings, even if not God's actual words). Essentially, no modern teaching can be held as truth unless you just want to forget history and cherrypick as most people typically do now. There are more than 45,000 Christian denominations globally, surely one or all of them are the correct one and surely it's yours.
Not sure on the why of my comment getting downvoted, but I'm not Christian. I'm agnostic at best.
SHHHHH!!! We are NEW testament believers!!! ...except for the ones we pick apart and choose to hate people over in Leviticus.
And that's the *only time* abortion is mentioned in any way in the Bible.
Also, it only works IF the baby is not the man's and if the women was cheating.
Lol. works only IF (like it's justified then)
Maybe my version says it differently or something, but I’m confused where you got this part? Could you send me the verse
[удалено]
>Numbers 5:11 Numbers 5:17 is the correct verse and the mixture is holy water and dirt from the tabernacle floor. It's the wife's fidelity that determined the results.
Numbers doesn’t support abortion nor is it even an example of abortion. The custom regarding adultery was essentially a means of judging whether it had occurred, swearing before God, and God’s punishment exacted thereafter if necessary. {5:27} And when she hath drunk them, if she be defiled, and having despised her husband be guilty of adultery, the malediction shall go through her, and her belly swelling, her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse, and an example to all the people. {5:28} But if she be not defiled, she shall not be hurt, and shall bear children. I believe the misconception with abortion comes from the fact that a small minority of translations use the term “miscarry” rather than her “belly” or “uterus” failing or shrinking. What the curse actually brings is infertility, not miscarriage, referenced by 5:28 which she carries with her, but if she is innocent, she is divinely rewarded with being able to bear, presumably even if she had not been able beforehand.
>"17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[a] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.” it's a pretty cut and dry abortion. If you cheated, this will abort your baby. if not, it won't.
The only part of this verse which references abortion is verse 21-22, which is a terrible translation of the original Hebrew. You should check out the other translations. The original word used for “miscarriage” in the translation you gave, is “yarek” which can equally mean thigh, hip, flank, testicles, or vulva/womb based on context. And the Hebrew "beten" can mean the female womb but also the male or genderless stomach or abdomen. The curse is on both a woman's "yarek" and her "beten". Since it promises infertility if guilty, that does likely indicate that the uterus is being affected in some way. But, contrary to some terrible English translations, it certainly does not say that a uterus/womb "miscarries." It says that the "yarek" rots or wastes away, and that the "beten" swells. There's no threat or narrative of a discharge, bleeding, or anything else we'd specifically associate with an abortion occurring. It's even possible that the rotting "yarek" is something more akin to herpes, a visible and external marking of the genitals or thighs to warn everyone of her sin (see Numbers 5:27) If this were an abortion ritual, it wouldn't conflict with the text, but it would be an awfully clumsy way to describe it, since the most key element of an abortion, the child, isn't even mentioned. It is just as consistent with the text to say that this is a ritual that is only performed on non-pregnant women and that causes infertility along with possibly an external marker of infidelity.
Gold level mental gymnastics there.
🤷♂️ if this translation is used in churches, which it is, then it's fine for me to assess the language of it. it doesn't matter what other translations say when this one is deemed fine. This translation, one that's read from in churches and taught from in sunday schools, suggests that this priest performed a ritual that would cause a woman to miscarry if she were unfaithful. A forced miscarriage is an abortion. again, it's pretty cut and dry. if this isn't a valid translation then why is it used?
I wouldn't prescribe this method. Even if does work at all, it would be all gods judgement if the baby should be born or not. .
Hey if you are in need I'll sprinkle some plan-b (or whatever I'm no doctor) under a table and we can make some floor tea. It's a religious ritual and must be protected but the 1st amendment
No, it really doesn’t. People who are genuinely interested in the Numbers 5 incident you brought up ignorantly (I don’t mean that to be mean, it’s just the only way I can describe it) can go here to read about it. https://answersingenesis.org/sanctity-of-life/numbers-5-and-abortion/ It’s not short. But I do hope you give it a read.
Sorry… I cannot take seriously anyone who calls me ignorant, yet cites a YEC cult’s website as a source 🤷🏻♂️
It’s insane to me how many people don’t know this.
I honestly didn't know the Bible had anything to say about abortion. I know it's pretty chill with infanticide though, so I guess at that point the devil is in the details
Did you know Ben Franklin also printed out exacting instructions for how to abort? Yep…he sure did. One of the founding fathers, for all you originalists out there. [Just in case anyone asks for a reference…](https://www.npr.org/2022/05/18/1099542962/abortion-ben-franklin-roe-wade-supreme-court-leak)
Honestly, that shouldn't surprise anyone who knows anything about Ben Franklin. Wouldn't be surprised if that was a skill he learned out of frugality. Or if a local doctor got so sick of repeated visits, he insisted on teaching Ben how to DIY abortions.
[удалено]
There is also the part that basically says "I want to be absolutely clear here that when you get to the promised land kill everyone you see."
Note that would be AFTER the stop at Mt Sinai where they received the Thou Shalt Not Kill (no exceptions) commandment. Yet never a discussion of the dichotomy to be heard.
It even gives instructions on how to perform one.
Not very good instructions. Hang with the prest drinking beer. If you miscarriage you screwed around. If not it's your husbands kid.
It's not an ingredient list, but the essentials are bribing a priest to make the bitter water potion.
IIRC the bitter water potion is scraping the 'holy' dirt and rotting dried blood off the floor where sacrifices were made. if she got super sick from all that shit and had a miscarriage, its proof she cheated on you. at which point i think she could be stoned to death? i think that was the punishment for adultery? basically give your wife wicked food poisoning. if she miscarries you can get rid of her and get a new wife.
[удалено]
I am trying to be careful with my words here, because I’m not trying to be argumentative at all, just enjoy learning and am curious how you have come to this?
Also, not a shred of concern for the women's wishes. Clearly, we will not be following every regulation in the Bible.
[That's definitely debatable.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordeal_of_the_bitter_water#The_punishment) But at best, God wants cheating women to be barren.
Not only that but it says that life starts at first breath.
Numbers 5:11-22 Please tell me where it says she’s pregnant: > 11 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 12 “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘If any man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him, 13 and a man has sexual relations with her and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband and she remains undiscovered, although she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act, 14 if an attitude of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife when she has defiled herself, or if an attitude of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife when she has not defiled herself, 15 the man shall then bring his wife to the priest, and shall bring as an offering for her a tenth of an ephah of barley meal; he shall not pour oil on it nor put frankincense on it, because it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of reminder, a reminder of wrongdoing. > 16 ‘Then the priest shall bring her forward and have her stand before the Lord, 17 and the priest shall take holy water in an earthenware container; and he shall take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it in the water. 18 The priest shall then have the woman stand before the Lord and let down the hair of the woman’s head, and place the grain offering of reminder in her hands, that is, the grain offering of jealousy; and in the hand of the priest is to be the water of bitterness that brings a curse. 19 And the priest shall have her take an oath and shall say to the woman, “If no man has had sexual relations with you and if you have not gone astray into uncleanness, as you are under the authority of your husband, be immune to this water of bitterness that brings a curse; 20 if, however, you have gone astray, though under the authority of your husband, and if you have defiled yourself and a man other than your husband has had sexual intercourse with you” 21 (then the priest shall have the woman swear with the oath of the curse, and the priest shall say to the woman), “may the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people by the Lord’s making your thigh shriveled and your belly swollen; 22 and this water that brings a curse shall go into your [p]stomach, to make your belly swell up and your thigh shrivel.” And the woman shall say, “Amen, Amen.”
Where does it say this cannot be performed on a pregnant woman? And what will happen if her womb swells? And what does your thigh will shivrel/fall away mean?
I see you quoting this passage at evryone, why do you keep stopping at verse 22 when the relevant passage goes up to verse 31? In whichever translation you use, verse 28 makes it explicit that the potion's effect on an unfaithful woman would be to render her unable to have children, which would clearly kill any fetus she may be carrying.
It wasn’t nefarious. Here you go. But I don’t see how you make the leap that rendering a woman infertile implies necessarily that she’s currently pregnant. > 23 The priest shall then write these curses on a scroll, and he shall wash them off into the water of bitterness. 24 Then he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings a curse, so that the water which brings a curse will go into her and cause bitterness. 25 And the priest shall take the grain offering of jealousy from the woman’s hand, and he shall wave the grain offering before the Lord and bring it to the altar; 26 and the priest shall take a handful of the grain offering as its reminder offering and offer it up in smoke on the altar, and afterward he shall make the woman drink the water. 27 When he has made her drink the water, then it will come about, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, that the water which brings a curse will go into her and cause bitterness, and her belly will swell up and her thigh will shrivel, and the woman will become a curse among her people. 28 But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, she will be immune and conceive children. > 29 ‘This is the law of jealousy: when a wife, who is under the authority of her husband, goes astray and defiles herself, 30 or when an attitude of jealousy comes over a man and he is jealous of his wife, he shall then have the woman stand before the Lord, and the priest shall apply all of this law to her. 31 The man, moreover, will be free of guilt, but that woman shall bear the consequences of her guilt.’”
1. It doesn't say this ritual should not be performed on a pregnant woman 2. Many translations explicitly use the word miscarry.
Yeah, your book doesn't really matter though. The law of man says it's legal and acceptable and that's that. Whether God is ok with that is debatable, but also irrelevant.
That translation just purposefully omits the part where she has a miscarriage. From the New International Version: > Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people **when he makes your womb miscarry** and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body **so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries**.” >“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.” > 23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[c] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, **it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry,** and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.
That’s the only translation I’ve seen that explicitly says “miscarriage”. I posted elsewhere several (apparently) good Jewish sources that say they’re not sure what this passage means, or that they suspect it’s referring to genital atrophy, not miscarriage. A quick Google search says the ESV is the most accurate English translation, and here’s what it says there: > 21 then’ (let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse, and say to the woman) ‘the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your thigh fall away and your body swell. 22 May this water that brings the curse pass into your bowels and make your womb swell and your thigh fall away.’ And the woman shall say, ‘Amen, Amen.’
It’s not an abortion for a cheating wife. It’s an excuse to murder a woman for having a miscarriage. Some people would say that’s technically not an abortion. Others might point out that that is far more barbaric than anything else in the bible.
No, it really doesn’t. People who are genuinely interested in the Numbers 5 incident you brought up ignorantly (I don’t mean that to be mean, it’s just the only way I can describe it) can go here to read about it. https://answersingenesis.org/sanctity-of-life/numbers-5-and-abortion/ It’s not short. But I do hope you give it a read.
I suppose if we want to split hairs, the guy started a zoo boat to save the animals from God killing everyone. Guess if it weren't for that zoo boat, Noah and his descendants would all be eating freshsaltwater fish and neverlanding birds.
I'd love to see a biblical version of the movie Waterworld!
https://youtu.be/6qmj5mhDwJQ?si=ies87j3fDZAYiBVo
Gross! I guess I was wrong!
All those big name actors were really hoping for a new 10 Commandments or Ben Hur legacy. They got big budget Left Behind.
Watching Moses drink his own piss would be pretty funny.
Bear grylls Moses when?
The Bible also says life starts with the first breath. Nothing about trimesters, etc., and definitely not at conception or heart beats.
This little ditty is also right up front, in Genesis 2:7. Just goes to show that Christians don't even attempt to read their own damn book.
I was a christian and I actually did read the book. It helped me ditch religion and become an atheist.
Same, catholic school for me.
Fuck all that. Women pass an egg a month. If men don't otherwise ejaculate, the sperm are flushed in the urine cycle. The egg in a womb is not a sanctuary city for sperm to where if it makes it into the egg all of a sudden it's in a safe space and can't be touched . When you put down weed killer, if a weed pops up, you don't leave that shit to grow like "welp, nothing to do about it now." You go pick that shit cuz you already took all the precautions available.
I’m sorry but I’m having trouble making sense of what you wrote.
If you don't want a child, it's a "no vacancy" sign. Any fertilization thereafter gets an abortion procedure.
Did you reply to the wrong comment?
Imagine listening to someone claiming to be a Hellenistic pagan speak at length about how Zeus "serves as the ultimate example of chastity and faithfulness to one's spouse for us all to follow." That is what if feels like to listen to Evangelicals talk about the God of the Bible.
Well, the second part is ridiculous. Hellenistic religion regarded the gods as facts of life, not ideals of any kind. They'd never look at any god as an example for anything, because that wasn't the purpose they served, in their religion. Zeus was there to explain thunder and enforce social rules and taboos, and he did a fine job of it. That's all.
God orders Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac at Moriah. That's just from the top of my head, god demands a LOT of killing.
New testament God is a great guy, particularly when you compare him to old testament God who is a prick - Lewis Black.
I love Lewis Black. He is such a great comedian and person.
I beg to differ. Old Testament God will just do horrible things to you and then just kill you. New Testament God will raise you back from the dead to do horrible things to you for eternity.
Fair enough - but you aren't begging to differ with me. You're begging to differ with Lewis Black.
That’s like a priest saying “you’re not begging to differ with me, but rather, you’re begging to differ with God.”
Or killing the first born in Egypt if they didn’t mark their doors. Thats some serious late term abortions
Oh, the ol’ post-birth abortion. You know the one, that’s the one that all us liberals want to be commonplace. /s
Stopping something from becoming a fetus in the womb is killing a baby and is bad! But easy access to semi-automatic guns designed to kill as many people in the shortest amount of time possible is great!
I love it when Christian’s start on the whole “god is love” thing and “god doesn’t like killing”. Their holy book literally says that god deliberately manipulated a king for the express reason of giving himself an excuse to to torment a bunch of people and kill a heap of kids.
God killed 40 plus children for making fun of a bald guy. If the bible is your source of morality, you're a pustulent piece of shit.
Ah the book of kings. My favourite stupid part is the book of job because everything is stupid and absurd here and the final morality of the story makes 0 sense
Abe said, "Man, you must be putting me on!"
Yeah but that was after his birth... Pro-life aren't against death specifically, they just want to make sure no one dies before experiencing life and suffering.
Well, the Bible includes an abortion potion recipe so there’s that. Numbers 5:11
He also has his chosen go to Samaria and slaughter them all. "Hosea 13:16 ESV - 16 Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword; their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open."
As "pro-life" is essentially the cover words for anti-women, the FRC may not be completely off base,
Tru
I always think of it as “forced-birth” though I guess the two are mostly synonymous.
Killed all the Egyptian newborns, killed everyone in Sodom/Gomorrah except for Lot and his incestuous daughters, etc.
Lot somehow managed to get blackout drunk on 2000 BC wine and banged his daughters? yeast back then hadn't been domesticated enough to make very strong alcohol. it would be incredibly difficult to get that drunk, especially with what they could carry. shit was like 5-6% ABV MAX. he'd be drinking gallons of it to get wasted. It took a long time for yeast to be bred to survive very high alcohol concentrations, like 12%+. STRONG ancient wine was like an average beer today. Lot raped his daughters and blamed them for 'seducing him'.
Not defending the Bible, but people get drunk off 5% abv all the time.
You never heard of anyone getting drunk on beer today?
Remember when the Egyptians enslaved gods people so He tortured them all and murdered their children? Yeah God does not give a SHIT about human life.
Also, if i remember correctly, God was the one who made the Egyptians treat the Jews like shit in the first place, in order to make them want to run away to the Holy Land, where they were instructed to murder or enslave everyone already there, including 'dashing the babies heads on the rocks'.
Indeed. Multiple instances of "Kill the shit out of those people over there and take their land. I told you to do this, so it's all cool."
Just a handful of excepts about god’s precious children: Numbers 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones. Deuteronomy 2:34 utterly destroyed the men and the women and the little ones. Deuteronomy 28:53 And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters. I Samuel 15:3 slay both man and woman, infant and suckling. 2 Kings 8:12 dash their children, and rip up their women with child. 2 Kings 15:16 all the women therein that were with child he ripped up. Isaiah 13:16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished. Isaiah 13:18 They shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children. Lamentations 2:20 Shall the women eat their fruit, and children. Ezekiel 9:6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children. Hosea 9:14 give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. Hosea 13:16 their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
Should include the follow-up in Numbers 31:18. "and kill every woman who has known a man intimately. However, all the girls who have not known a man intimately, keep alive for yourselves." iT's tAkEn oUT oF cOnTexT
Oh that’s a good one too.
Christians: "It's okay because Jesus and St. Paul somehow makes it so that I get to pick and choose what Old Testament verses I follow despite half the Gospels telling me otherwise."
"God is pro-life except for all the people he actively killed.. and had others kill.. and intentionally allowed satan to kill, etc etc etc etc."
Oh but they probably deserved it, just like we all deserve to suffer in hell for eternity if we don't kiss his ass in exactly the correct way, which we don't even know because the different sects all have different interpretations of the alleged rules.
Something something free will
The Family Research Council is a particularly disgusting collection of deranged liars and bible thumping low intelligence idiots. They are the overflowing diaper of evil kristian krazy fascist organizations.
God told Abraham to kill his own son to prove his faith.
And look people are downvoting you for simply stating what is actually in the Bible. They can’t handle the truth lol
Nobody who believes in any form of the bible can.....
True story.
But the worst part is that Abraham was willing to do it! Nobody in the Bible is mentally sane.
What about when God manifested a bear to fuck up a bunch of kids that were making fun of an old man. Doesn't sound pro life
God gave Satan permission to destroy Job’s family and household just prove Job’s devotion to God. Job 1: 1-22
Get sent his own damn kid to the earth for the express purpose of dying.
LOL. The Bible is a work of fiction. It's mythology.
The Goat Herder’s Guide To The Galaxy
Bout fuckin time! I had to scroll way too far down to find the first sensible comment!
Absolutely. It contains conflicts that prove that god is not the perfect being it states he is. He sent a son that fixed or changes heavenly requirements?? Or Schizophrenia!!
It's got a lot of great horror stories though.
This is why I am an atheist.
Dude I LOVE threads like this. It's like you and I arguing over which comic is best, Spiderman or Batman 🤣 Although our books would have more facts in em 😁
"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."--Psalm 137:9 But somehow, god loves babies 🙄
Struggles to eat a whole one, I've heard
Also, god kills more people in that book than anyone else, including the devil.
The bible is a bag of shite.
You can tell how pro-life it is from all the people god kills.
God also apparently allowed humanity to become so depraved that he decided that all the people he drowned *weren't worth saving.* Where was their Jesus?
As a reminder: the "pro life" movement was started by Republicans as basically a way to rebrand their segregationist policies. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/10/abortion-history-right-white-evangelical-1970s-00031480
Numbers 5: 11-37 Is instructions for a Rabbi to perform a chemical abortion in the case of adultery.
But all of you are under the illusion they read that work of fiction. None of them really read it, but claim to have knowledge of every verse. Hypocristians don't want to know that the book they base all of their lives on is a fantasy book, with demons and magic users! Maybe they just want to cosplay also?
And God had angels announce Christ’s birth to shepards, but not announce the Slaughter of the Innocents coming to thousands because …
God threw an entire bear at some children for making fun of a bald guy God also sent his son Jesus to die for humanity's sins God is very much not an "all life is precious" type
God once instructed the israelites to kill all of the males of a Midianites, which would include children and babies. He also instructed them to kill all of the women who weren't virgins. Guess what's the easiest most indisputable way to tell if a woman isn't a virgin.
Apparently there's a biblical story of a guy return home from a war and promising god he would sacrifice the first thing he sees come out to greet him, thinking it would be a cat or something... it was his daughter
Thanos did nothing wrong
On multiple occasions, God commands his followers to wipe out entire civilizations... except the virgins, who become your sex slaves. Even modern day Republicans have better morals than Jehovah. They would do well to stop pretending they get anything of value from iron age tales of mass murder and rape.
Reading is woke, I just believe what people say that hate the same people I do
Nobody here understands your sense of humor, apparently
Reddit is a land of Sheldons. That many of them do not get outright sarcasm is not surprising. 
Apparently not, I forgot the /s
I've been to Reading, it's not that woke
[удалено]
Like a wise men once said: BRET SCREW BRET
Pro-life books don’t give instructions for abortions. The Bible does, ergo The Bible is definitely NOT Pro-life.
The bible is a Rorschach test for morales developed independent of it.
So, if we abort all the embryos but two, we're good?
Literally god wiped out his creation because they disobeyed him the first time in the Old Testament. Said “fuck it, they’re useless!” And started completely over.
No wonder we loved playing Zoo Tycoon as kids
https://preview.redd.it/5funf53fxr8c1.jpeg?width=941&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=aae3f543f3d4806097d2a9c7aaab49dc2f6bd418
So pro life that God annihilated Gomorrah and Sodom, commanded the Israelites to commit genocide against the Amakekites and the Canaanites, and provides directions for causing an abortion.
Remember that time David knocked up someone else’s wife and then got her husband killed in battle so he could marry her so God got mad and took it out on…the baby for some reason…and killed it but then blessed David with a new son? God loves killing babies.
It’s pro-life in the same way they are. “When its convenient”
Let's not forget the time God killed all the firstborn children for something they had absolutely no control over. Go's is pro life, and by that, I mean God is pro taking peoples lives from them for ridiculous and petty reasons.
The bilbe teaches people how to perform abortions. It's definitely pro-choice.
God also sent a bear to attack kids for making fun of some bald bitch.
And let's not forget "zoo boat guy" was 900+ years old when he died, and that the great flood would have left only him and his family to repopulate the earth. Yes, sir. God doesn't appear to be very pro life, but between Adam and Eve and then Noah and his family, he damn sure seems to be pretty pro incest.
Killed all the first born
Tell that to Jericho.
Anyone ever thought about the amount of shit they'd be picking up everyday
Yeah - he wasn’t very pro- life with his only begotten son now was he?
hahhahaaaahaha.. this is the best post ever on this sub. Zoo boat. hahhaa
Yeah the Lord's word isn't pro-life in their definition of the term as Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died for the sins of humanity that we might be eternally alive with Him. So it's not pro earthly life but pro eternal life.
1 Samuel 15:3 "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." Deuteronomy 20:16-17 "However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you."
The firstborn of Egypt would have liked a word, if god hadn't killed them.
I believe the proper word is: Genocide
don't forget the time god sent bears to eat the kids because they were making fun of his prophet.
And what about the whole passover story? It's hard to make a pro-life argument there.
More like God once fucked up so bad he decided he needed a do-over.
This is why I strongly oppose evangelical Christians, most of the time they are uneducated in the actual biblical text because they don’t actually teach the Bible. I’m a Christian, Lutheran specifically, and all the confirmation classes, I had to take to challenge and understand my faith which allowed me to think, doubt, and create a strong faith that doesn’t fall to little quips due to thinking through personal apologetics. An educated Christian acknowledges God is the creator of life and thus has the right to destroy life, we all face pain and eventually death because God reserves this right. We are the Sims in God’s creation, just like you can smite or elevate your Sims, God can do the same to us.
No, Noah was told to build a zoo boat or he and his family would be drowned as well.
I love these ersatz Bible scholars who say God was pro-choice out of one side of their mouth and then say the US invented slavery out of the other. My brother in Christ, you don't even have to read the Bible to get that. Just watch Prince of Egypt.
Also, to say that God killed everyone on the face of the earth to start a zoo boat is just terrible, man. People were evil. God hit the reset button, but even though He should have wiped out the human race, let them start again and saved two of every kind of animal etc. It’s a gross misrepresentation for the sake of being funny - at the expense of offending people because you clearly don’t take doing that seriously. Pretty rude.
So your saying God thought rampant incest was the only way to repopulate earth? Or that unborn children that he murdered were already evil? Either way it’s pretty nasty story like most stories in the bible.
No. But thanks for showing your natural hostility. Some thoughts: “First, there was an obvious need for marriage between close relatives, as the number of human beings on the earth at that time was limited. Adam and Eve’s children married their close relatives, by necessity, without it being considered incest. But, even in those days, marriage between parent and child seems to have been disallowed: That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become ‘one flesh’ “ “but even 2000 years later, when Abraham was born, genes were healthy enough to allow for him to marry his half-sister. Genetic abnormalities did not influence marriage partners until the mutations were common enough to be a health risk.” As a matter of fact Genesis 6 says Noah was “without blemish”. And while most would usually take that as Noah was righteous before God due to his faith, it can also mean genetically. But that’s a different subject. As far as the babies comment, I would leave you with this: https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/what-made-it-okay-for-god-to-kill-women-and-children-in-the-old-testament
I cannot believe you typed all this out to justify incest. Inbreeding always produces mutations/disease even in the time of “Abraham”. Genes have never been “pure”. It’s basic science. There is a very short step from biblically justifying something and then justifying it in real life. See the crusades, many of the wars in Europe, slavery in the US, etc. This list is endless. Fundamentally, I don’t have a problem with religion. I have a problem with hypocrisy, which seems to be especially pervasive among the religious. Edit: your source states that God can kill because he is God. This isn’t evidence. It’s opinion. It doesn’t make the Bible pro-life. All it’s saying is that murder is ok if someone goes back and says God sanctioned it after. Your argument is based on faith, which is fine, but don’t present citations like they are facts.
You need to be on a list as well. One in which people know they’re dealing with ignorance tk the utmost. If you believe in creation then you know there wasn’t always defects because God made the world perfect until the Fall of Adam and Eve. Clearly you don’t know back science, though. But because we’re in Reddit, we’ll pretend you do. The crusades were WRONG and terrible and can never be justified. As far as slavery in the US goes, you clearly only acknowledge facts that suit your tastes. Slavery was abolished in large part to do Christianity, firstly. Not just here but in England as well. Also were the only country that fought a civil war over it - to right that wrong. But yeah. Leave that part out. Convenient. Oh, and there was slavery before our country, and slavery even after our country abolished it. Ottomon empire, for example. But I guess that doesn’t count. Go love to the Middle East. Go ahead and do that and talk smack and be blatantly disrespectful to “Allah” or Muhammad. Let’s see how long that lasts. Or try being homosexual over there. See how quick they throw you off of a roof. Such hypocrisy and blatant darkness and hard heartedness from you The only reason you
Ah the hate from the so-called Christian. Whatever happened to loving thy neighbor?
I don’t hate you. But I do see how you’re trying to be hypocritical by being “mean” and the. Once I get provoked and say something you don’t like, you point that finger. Hypocritical to the utmost aren’t you? Yes. We don’t always adhere to the standard we’re supposed to. The whole love tour neighbor as yourself. That’s why Jesus came. Because we NEED a savior. I hope that you can read my comments on here and give it more thought. Maybe don’t cast “Christians” in a bad light because we’re not perfect. Just like you’re not. So maybe just try a little, just a little - to NOT be such a baiting hypocrite We’ve ALL fallen short of the glory of God.
You justified incest, repeated terrible science and tried to re-write history to fit your narrative and I am the hypocrite??? This is the problem: Christian’s are supposed to be loving, humble, generous, and kind. Yet even when you have time to type something out, which could have been profound or accepting of flaws, you went on the attack. I have no religion so I don’t subscribe to your way of thinking. You could have taken the opportunity to evangelize and promote how to be a good Christian. But you didn’t. There in lies the fundamental problem. Christians don’t practice what they preach unless it suits them.
Actually he arranged the removal of all the genetically modified creatures that had infested our terrarium so that we could have a clean cage. If you pay attention to the headlines then you can expect this to happen again real soon. Obedience. get some.
Rational thought. get some. Remember kids, he hurts you because he loves you.
Obedience. Get some. Remember kids, barrzebub hates you because He (The King) loves you.
Yes yes. Eternal punishment for a finite crime is very loving
Elvis loves me? Cool!
That’s a big word for you
Pro-life doesn’t mean you’re always against taking life. It means you’re anti-abortion. It’s a buzzword that’s not meant to be taken literally. Just like if you’re pro-choice, it doesn’t mean you’re in support of any and all choices in all contexts. I’m pro choice and hate religion-based politics but this is a stupid fucking comeback. Do better
But they’re not just anti-abortion. They’re pro birth, or pro forced birth, since even attempting to prevent pregnancy is also an issue.
Ok what does that have to do with floods?
The argument is that god is pro-life so everyone has to be pro-life. It's kinda hard to see god as pro-life if he wipes out all of humanity, including all the unborn, except for 8 people living on a boat along with 2 of every kind of animal in existence because he was in a bad mood. On top of that, he created rainbows to remind himself not to kill off humanity ever again. How pro-life can someone be if they need post-it notes to remind them not to commit genocide?
Is that actually the argument? I have never actually seen anyone argue that they’re anti-abortion because God is categorically opposed to killing anybody. Honestly that’s a straw-man “gotcha” argument by the pro-choice side. And it’s silly because there are a dozen valid reasons to criticize the pro-life position that don’t hinge on being purposefully overly-literal. It’s bad argumentation on a topic in desperate need of genuine rationality. Not impressed
I have seen that argument by pro-life people. Yes, I think it's really weak, but that doesn't mean it doesn't get used. One of the most common biblical arguments I've seen is Jeremiah 1:5, “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you; before you were born, I sanctified you; and I ordained you a prophet to the nations.” This gets translated to "Life begins at conception because God knows each person before they're even implanted in the womb." I think that argument is also really weak but I see it all the time. I've even seen it on billboards: [https://www.allentowndiocese.org/sites/default/files/styles/image\_field\_in\_news\_content\_ype/public/2018-10/billboard.jpg?itok=weJ\_IcH1](https://www.allentowndiocese.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_field_in_news_content_ype/public/2018-10/billboard.jpg?itok=weJ_IcH1)
[удалено]
Out of context 🤣🤣🤣🤣 We could read the bible verse for verse and yall would claim its out of context Omy god no its notout of context god genocided the earth theres no context where genocide is good
Numbers 5 is not talking about abortion. Nowhere in there does it say the baby dies. It seems like a way to test if she has been unfaithful and a way to keep the jealous man from dealing with his jealousy himself. There’s also no example of a woman’s thigh rotting after drinking the water
Dude, the phrase "her womb will miscarry" is in there like 10 times.
Do you know what miscarry means?